November 27, 2009

MG Siegler: I Hope You are Wrong*

[Update: MG has another post up here discussing the reactions I have below to the first post. He makes some good points and backs things up with fact; well done. I hope, tho, we still think about accuracy being something to actually care about.]

MG Siegler has a TechCrunch Post up entitled "This is Why The Internet (And Twitter) Wins" in which he shows us all how our fancy medium and everybody's favorite golden child of the software world (Twitter) will eventually kill newspapers and TV.

The example he points to is the Tiger Woods accident. Hmm.. Let's take a step back since this doesn't exactly track.

First, comparing a newspaper to Twitter is a bit of a stretch but rather than nit pick it, let's just ignore it and assume he was making the higher level point about non-paper places for news have lots of advantages, etc, and they just add to the pile of bad news for print media. Okay, fine, noted and at that higher level, yup I'd generally agree.

But then he goes off into comparing Twitter (or more specifically BNOnews) to CNN boasting how it was on Twitter before it went up on CNN or anyplace else. And he claims the good folks at BNOnews "got it right."

Except a) it appears a local news outlet reported on it first and b) the BNOnews bulletin turns out to be wrong.

Being on Twitter first, not so sure, WESH's RSS feed sent it out and they say on their web site, they were first to report it. But, meh, who cares about 'first to report it' rather let's work on the only reason I bothered to react to his post: accuracy.

"Sure, not a lot of information there, but it’s clearly labeled as a report, and yes, it did turn out to be correct. And thanks to Twitter, thousands of people had access to this information about 45 minutes before it appeared on CNN or ESPN, the “worldwide leaders” in news in their respective fields"

Actually, it didn't turn out to be correct because the police, hospital, Tiger's website, and all those worldwide news leaders (and WESH in Florida) correctly reported this as a minor car accident. He was treated and released, is at home, probably has to explain the 2:20a speed romp down the driveway, and had the no alcohol involved report confirmed by the authorities.

You are about to type "but they got the core right, there was an accident"; don't. I acknowledge that but only to actually make my point even more forcefully.

MG further points out Google was on the case within 10 minutes with links to all the internet goodness:

"Within 15 minutes, we knew what time the crash occurred at, apparently what happened, and some other important details (like no alcohol being involved)."

If BNOnews had said Tiger Woods in car crash and popped a link over to WESH; I'm fine. If BNOnews had said Tiger Woods in car crash, details to follow; I'm good. Saying seriously injured is irresponsible and I'm not good. I'm not good because it is a very slippery slope if this disease of continuous partial attention, gimmie the 140 character version, skip the details stuff turns in to the mainstream. It means we end up with some Twitter "report" of a school bomb scare getting 'reported' as a bomb actually at the school promptly and needlessly phreaking out parents. Not good, accuracy matters and I'll take the extra time for accuracy, thank you very much.

It's a bad thing if things like CNN, the New York Times, local reporting, etc, all get reduced to who Tweets it first. It means we are on a path of being happy with insta-bits minus accounting for details.

To repeat myself, I think accuracy matters.

I'm fine with BNOnews or the lady walking her dog (at 2:20a) using Twitter to tell us what they know/saw/think. I'm not fine with confusing this stuff with "reporting" and those pesky details about serious vs. minor being ignored. MG's apparent praising of a clearly labeled report, in my view, should be the exact opposite. As MG pointed out, within 15 minutes we had 'reports' with the actual ( or official at any rate) information.

Paul Carr wrote a great piece on TechCrunch about citizen journalism. As a better writer vs. yours truly, I would suggest you go read it here. What he said.

If MG's point was you'll read it electronically first before print, yup, the news radio guys have been saying the same thing about their medium over print as well. If his point was Twitter will "win" over all other sources, like those that wait minutes (!), to report actual facts; I hope he is seriously wrong.

Accuracy (and truth as Paul points out) become the first casualties in MG's world.

Comments

As a journalist fascinated by social media (and trying not to take sides), I quite agree. We must judge each medium by what it does best, but acccuracy, correctness, truth, must always be the key criterion. (Table stakes.)

Twitter told me Michael Jackson had been taken to hospital in an ambulance; CNN told me he was dead; print told me why it mattered; and film showed me why Michael mattered.

To each its own. And while Twitter may always be first now, it must also be correct. And the detailed truths, the truly important ones that help us draw the right conclusions from the data, will emerge thanks to discipined, informed reporting, from all media.

One point regarding your statements about BNO reporting the injury as "serious": they were reporting that as a classification by the local Orlando police authorities, who report any injury as "serious" if it is anything more than a small scratch. So it appears that BNO was echoing the local police classification of the injury, and not inserting their own subjective opinion in that regard.

Don,
Thanks for stopping by. Yup. It turns out tho that serious is pro-forma and while I appreciate the echoing what was there, the mainstream (if there is such a thing any more) mostly knew this and stayed away from serious. The larger point, for me anyway, is this rush tends to skip over details and its not what Id like to win as MG puts it. Im good with a little detail and the time it take to get it.

I think an important reason why Newspapers and TV are slower than internet mediums is due to the fact that they go through a verification process. There is a big difference between information and knowledge. The same applies to information and Facts. Journalists who have spent a decade in a region can provide a much more accurate analysis of the situation over individuals on twitter. This is exactly why, they along with newspapers and TV will continue to have an important place in the media industry.

I think an important reason why Newspapers and TV are slower than internet mediums is due to the fact that they go through a verification process. There is a big difference between information and knowledge. The same applies to information and Facts. Journalists who have spent a decade in a region can provide a much more accurate analysis of the situation over individuals on twitter. This is exactly why, they along with newspapers and TV will continue to have an important place in the media industry.